Not to current jobs, at least not initially. To potential jobs required to build plants.

Looking at it that way, not allowing more prostitution costs jobs- jobs for prostuitutes and jobs building whorehouses. Not allowing more gambling costs jobs. Not allowing the mafia to operate more openly without law enforcement intevention costs jobs. There are certain things that we decide as a matter of public policy that are not allowed even though allowing them would create jobs.

West Virginia exports 70 percent of the electricity it generates. Just as we set limits on gambling, we need to set limits on the mining and burning of coal and the proliferation of power transmission lines.

The Daily Mail has it right.

Those who want wind power should be under some pressure to build turbines in their back yards, too.

How so Frank? Because that's not what I've read. I get that it is caused by the equipment installed to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

And the cause of nitrogen oxide emmissions is the burning of coal. It is not enough to substitute one problem with still another new problem- nor to blame the new problem on the "cure" for the old problem.

Both nitrogen oxide emmissions and blue haze are caused by the same action- the burning of coal.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly about the burning of coal you should stop using it and it's end product Frank!!!

I have done more- successfully so- in the past 8 or 9 years to help replace coal with wind power in West Virginia than you have. There are now approximately 200 MWs of generating capacity of wind powered electrical energy being put on the West Virginia section of tha PJM operated electrical power grid in West Virginia. And there are a couple hundred or so MWs of hydro-power electricity generating capacity in West Virginia. One hydro-power generating facility, at Racine Ohio, is perhaps no more than about 10 miles from here- closer than the closest coal power plant. Once those electrons are on the grid, NO ONE can tell one electron from another. So I challenge you to show us that the electrons I use are not generated by hydro-power or wind power instead of by coal.

Like it or not, the power sources for the electricity we use are becoming more and more diversified.

And once again, your logic is faulty. AEP runs some hydro power stations but the bulk of their electricity (more then 95%) comes from buring coal. Like it or not, coal is what turns your light, as well as your computer on.

I don't hate wind Frank. In fact, I believe we should use more of it, as much as humanly possible. I know that with the ingenuity of entrepreneur’s backed by American capitalism, we will sooner rather then later find a way to make wind more stable and will also find a manner in which to store the energy.

And unlike you and some of your conservation friends that have done everything possible to delay and deter Ned Power, I hope to see it come online just as the Mountaineer Wind farm did on Backbone Mountain in Tucker, County.

I honestly don't understand how you guys can say stuff like... "I'm not sure that wind turbines in this region will significantly reduce the outcome of global climate change or actually have any role," Mr. Boone said. "The very limited benefit doesn't justify the risk of wiping out a lot of interior forest habitat."

...I just don't think that way. If anything, unlike you and Danny, I believe these turbines, as seen here on Backbone Mountain...

enhance the beauty of our 'interior forest habitat' and that once construction is completed, nature will adapt to the turbines.

And unlike you and some of your conservation friends that have done everything possible to delay and deter Ned Power, I hope to see it come online just as the Mountaineer Wind farm did on Backbone Mountain in Tucker, County.

Newsflash, guy: (1) Nedpower has been on line for about 8 months already- since late 2007 (2) Ask NedPower's lead development person, Jerome Nissan, if I have done anything to delay that project. BTW, his e-mail address is Jerome Niessen E-mail Address(es): hniessen@nedpower.com . He will tell you that I have been a pain in the ass to the wind power obstructionists- and a champion for candor and cooperation between that industry and conservation groups. Ask NedPower's permit application attorney, Chris Callas (E-mail Address(es): CCALLAS@jacksonkelly.com) if I did anything to delay the NedPower project.

I honestly don't understand how you guys can say stuff like..."I'm not sure that wind turbines in this region will significantly reduce the outcome of global climate change or actually have any role," Mr. Boone said. "The very limited benefit doesn't justify the risk of wiping out a lot of interior forest habitat." ...I just don't think that way. If anything, unlike you and Danny, I believe these turbines, as seen here on Backbone Mountain... "

Dan Boone is an arrogant jackass- and should be an embarrassment to any self-respecting conservationist. And when I told him so about 6 years ago, he stopped communicating with me. Good riddance.

If he is the best you can come up with, you ain't got nothin'.

Since I don't hold you responsible for Don Blankenship's asininity, why would you hold me responsible for Dan Boone's asininity?

If NedPower is online, why can't I find anything about it online of find images of the 200 wind turbines? All I'm seeing is stuff like this...

For Immediate Release: May 8, 2008

Contact: Judy Rodd, Friends of Blackwater, 304-345-7663

Lawsuit to be filed to Protect Wildlife from NedPower Industrial Wind Project near Dolly Sods Wilderness Chas, WV. Today eleven citizens groups filed a Sixty Day Notice of Intent to Sue NedPower Mt Storm and its corporate owners Dominion Resources, and Shell Wind Energy for violations of the Endangered Species Act involving the “takes” of the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, the Indiana bat, and the Virginia big-eared bat. The letter, sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service, NedPower and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, also raises concerns about impacts to bald and golden eagles and migrating birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts.

The groups are demanding that the industrial wind corporation apply for an incidental take permit and modify or stop construction of this project before irreparable harm is done to West Virginia’s natural heritage. “NedPower has ignored the huge number of birds and bats that will be killed each year by the project, ignored the golden eagles that will be decapitated as they try to return to their winter homes near Mt. Storm Lake, and ignored threats to bald eagles that catch fish at the Lake” said Judy Rodd of Friends of Blackwater. “NedPower is clearing acres of land in endangered flying squirrel habitat just a few miles north of the Dolly Sods Wilderness area. We believe that this project is in violation of federal law.”

Friends of Blackwater, Friends of the Allegheny Front, Friends of the Appalachian Highlands, Friends of Backbone Mountain, Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Laurel Mountain Preservation Association, the Maryland Alliance for Greenway Improvement and Conservation, the Maryland Conservation Council, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and Stewards of the Potomac Highlands are challenging Ned power’s claim that the project will have no impact on these rare species. They point out that researchers estimate that 4,000 bats were killed in one year at the Mountaineer Wind Project less than 14 miles away. That project operates 44 turbines while NedPower in Grant County is certified to build 200 turbines that could kill more than 20,000 bats annually.

I will try to find a link. My wife and I saw several dozen turbines operating- blades turning- up there in December- on the northeastern, eastern and southeastern sides of Mt. Storm lake.

It is my understanding that these turbines were constructed last year, went online in December- so that that qualified for 10 years of production tax credits that ran out December 31st- and that additional turbines are being constructed this year further south on the Allegheny Front.

I will try to find a link.

The folks who appealed the PSC permit for NedPower, and who are now filing civil lawsuits, have lost their legal argument every step of the way. My prediction is that they will continue to lose on legal points- although they might find a jury willing to make some "favarable" ruling or other about the facts.

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would you oppose wind Frank?

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would you oppose wind Frank?

What ever happened to:

Aaron wrote:Don't make assumptions about me and I won't make them about you, comprenda !!!

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would you oppose wind Frank?

What ever happened to:

Aaron wrote:Don't make assumptions about me and I won't make them about you, comprenda !!!

Fair enough Frank. I'll rephrase.

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would an organization in which you play such a prominent role and have spoken for publically for in the past oppose wind Frank?

1- I spoke publicly for the organization when I was its president. I have not been its president since almost 4 years ago.

2- I do not always agree with what WVHC does. Indeed, we there, like we here, often have heated debates with little resolution.

3- The WVHC wind energy resoultion referred to in the article springs from the proposition put forth in a position paper published by: http://www.laurelmountainpreservationassociation.org/index.html .

I do not suppoort this paper, and I consider it highly suspect at least in part because I do not trust the source. I am unable to find a link to the specific paper, but someone sent it to me in a MS Word file several months ago. I cite it here because it does represent a current and growing concern about wind farms that are not dispersed over a large geographical area of the power grid to which they supply energy. Again, this is not my paper, and by cting it here I am not endorsing it. Frankly, I am skeptical of the motives of those who do publish it. But you asked about WV Highlands Conservancy. And the concern expressed by WVHC is the concern expressed in this paper.

Most of us take for granted the electricity in our homes. We turn on the light switch and the light comes on. However, an electric power plant must control numerous activities in order for this to happen. First, we must remember from our basic physics class that we have alternating current (AC current) in our homes. This means that rather than the current of electrons going in just one direction, the electrons move first in one direction, then the other. So the wires supplying the current alternately change back and forth between positive and negative. In the U.S., this alternating current changes from positive to negative and back to positive 60 times each second. The frequency is therefore 60 cycles per second or 60 hertz (hertz means cycles/second). This information is available in basic high school physics textbooks (such as “Basic Physics: A Self-Teaching Guide, Second Edition, by Karl F. Kuhn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-13447-3).

So, an electric power plant must provide electricity to our homes at 60 hertz. For example, the Mt. Storm coal-fired plant has three units, two of which have a generating capacity of 563 megawatts and one with a generating capacity of 567 megawatts (http://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/mtstorm_print.jsp). These units weigh approximately 160 tons each and cannot simply be turned on and off. They must operate at 3600 rpm in order to produce the 60 hertz of electricity required for use in our homes. They operate by steam which is produced by a boiler, fired by pulverized coal which is introduced by forced air into the boiler. If there is incomplete combustion of this pulverized coal, such as when the flame stability drops below 50 percent, this creates a potentially explosive, very dangerous condition. This is similar to the dust in corn silos which is extremely dangerous if it catches fire. Read a description of how these units operate and an explanation of flame stability at http://www.fwc.com/publications/tech_papers/files/AnthraciteFiring_LargestSteamGenerators.pdf.

What happens, then, if the steam is backed down in order for electricity from industrial-scale wind turbines to be integrated into the turbines at the electric plant? The steam must go somewhere other than into the turbine because the turbine must maintain 3600 rpm to produce 60 hertz. The steam can simply go into the atmosphere or be diverted to another unit, if one is available. Whenever you drive by an electric plant, you may notice there is a lot of steam being directed into the atmosphere. This is the result of coal continuously burning for the boiler. By simple logic, then, if the electricity from industrial-scale wind turbines is used, but the coal must continue to burn, there is no decrease in the use of coal and there is no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.

If there is enough electricity from the industrial-scale wind turbines introduced for a particular period of time, the coal-fired boilers can reduce the amount of pulverized coal introduced to the boiler for a short period of time, but no less than the amount required for the 50 percent flame stability. However, when the wind-derived electricity is no longer available, because the wind is so variable, the boilers must be heated up again to the proper temperature for steam to go into the electric plant’s turbine. This requires an additional amount of pulverized coal to be used, similar to the additional amount of gasoline to be used when you accelerate your car. Bent Sørensen, in his book, “Renewable Energy: Its Physics, Engineering, Environmental impacts, Economics, and Planning” (Third Edition, 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-12-656153-1) refers to the number of “calls” or “start-ups” required for the base unit (for example, one of the 563 megawatt units at Mt. Storm). Because of this requirement to increase the boiler temperature at numerous times to accommodate the use of wind-derived electricity, there is a “break-even” situation such that there is no effective saving of fuel (coal) or, therefore, of carbon dioxide emissions.

Add to this “break-even” situation the requirement of parasitic loads for industrial-scale wind turbines to be able to operate at all and the requirement for a spinning reserve, then there is even more coal used than if there were no industrial-scale wind turbine electricity at all. Industrial-scale wind turbines require electricity from the grid in order to operate their “parasitic loads”, which includes keeping the blades turning when the wind velocity is too low, electricity for the electric pitch system, yaw motors, oil heaters, oil pumps for bearings and gearbox, cooling fan for the generator, and turbine controller (http://www.psc.utah.gov/elec/06docs/0603542/6-21-07%20petition.pdf; and “Rebuttal Testimony of David K. Friend”, p. 15, PSC Case No. 05-1740-E-CS Liberty Gap Wind Force, LLC).

Wind plants simply cannot operate without the use of coal-fired plants. All generating facilities are required to have a spinning reserve of electricity that is available at any moment if a power plant ceases operation or a transmission line goes down (http://www.pjm.com/contributions/news-releases/2006/20060501-dr-in-ancillary-services-markets.pdf). Wind plants are not capable of producing a spinning reserve and the operators of wind plants must therefore purchase the spinning reserve from a reliable source, such as a coal-fired generating plant. This extra spinning reserve required for the wind plant therefore constitutes a requirement for the use of coal as a reliable energy source in West Virginia, with the result that coal must be burned and carbon dioxide will be emitted.

Aaron wrote:OK, you've said you don't support this paper. So what do you support Frank?

I think I have made it very clear here that I support wind power generated electricity- such as the Backbone Mountain and NedPower Mt. Storm wind energy facilities.

And why don't you trust the source.

I simply have not found the source and their allies in oppostion (people like Dan Boone) to wind farms in West Virginia to be credible generally. And I am without the technical understanding of how coal fired power plants operate to have an informed opinion on whether their claims have merit.

I have asked them several times if they have any qualified experts in coal power plant operations who can confirm their theories. So far they have produced none. And although these folks have appeared as lay witnesses in PSC evidentary hearings, they have not yet convinced the PSC that their demonstratable knowledge by education and / or profession in the subject matter of this paper qualifies them as expert witnesses.

I would add that I have asked Wayne Perdue, of the state PSC's engineering division about the claims of LMPA. Mr. Perdue formerly had several years of experience as an efficiency technician or some such duties at coal fired power plants. Mr. Perdue told me that coal fired power plants can maintain a steam turbine's spinning reserve with as little as eleven (11) percent of the coal fuel that would be consumed at "full throttle". But there are several levels of "spinning reserve"- depending on how much power may be demanded on short notice- and how short or long that notice is- meaning how quickly that power needs to be generated